NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
Thread Starter
NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
All,
The following is an extract from the November/December issue of (Australian) Flying magazine dealing with the NAS 2b changes coming up, showing the key features of the November 2003 changes.
The full page can be seen at <http://www.users.tpg.com.au/awetzel/...%20NAS0001.jpg>
Part of the much discussed chart changes and the removal of area frequency boundaries is covered in the following, extracted from the NAS supplement in Flying magazine
__________________________________________________
« No longer an area frequency for VFR
This new system is based on ICAO airspace classifications and proven international practice, especially those of the USA. A major change is that there is no longer an area frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute. Rather than a pilot having to look down at maps to ascertain the area frequency boundaries, as well as monitoring a constant babble of communications directed to other aircraft, the VFR pilot can concentrate on navigation, good airmanship and keeping a good lookout.
VFR aircraft flying enroute would normally monitor the guard ( Emergency) frequency of 121.5, or possibly a nearby Flightwatch outlet. The important point is that when enroute, if flying through airspace used for approaching and departing traffic at an airport, the frequency of that airport should be monitored.
A prudent pilot will avoid the approach and departure airspace of airports on the way, and strictly follow good radio practice when in the CTAF/MBZ.
__________________________________________________
I'm told that the new charts are on the way, should be in the mail any day now.
Tootle pip !!
The following is an extract from the November/December issue of (Australian) Flying magazine dealing with the NAS 2b changes coming up, showing the key features of the November 2003 changes.
The full page can be seen at <http://www.users.tpg.com.au/awetzel/...%20NAS0001.jpg>
Part of the much discussed chart changes and the removal of area frequency boundaries is covered in the following, extracted from the NAS supplement in Flying magazine
__________________________________________________
« No longer an area frequency for VFR
This new system is based on ICAO airspace classifications and proven international practice, especially those of the USA. A major change is that there is no longer an area frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute. Rather than a pilot having to look down at maps to ascertain the area frequency boundaries, as well as monitoring a constant babble of communications directed to other aircraft, the VFR pilot can concentrate on navigation, good airmanship and keeping a good lookout.
VFR aircraft flying enroute would normally monitor the guard ( Emergency) frequency of 121.5, or possibly a nearby Flightwatch outlet. The important point is that when enroute, if flying through airspace used for approaching and departing traffic at an airport, the frequency of that airport should be monitored.
A prudent pilot will avoid the approach and departure airspace of airports on the way, and strictly follow good radio practice when in the CTAF/MBZ.
__________________________________________________
I'm told that the new charts are on the way, should be in the mail any day now.
Tootle pip !!
Thread Starter
All,
Why ??
Because that is the frequency that is monitored by all airline aircraft in cruise, most of the time, and the frequency on which you are most likely to get an immediate answer if you are at low level and you have a problem.
I have lost count of the times, from "on high" I have picked up somebody on 121.5, when all other frequencies have failed to get a contact. When they are IFR, and I am calling for ATC, why no answer to ATC on the area centre frequency?? Who knows, black hole. any number of reasons, turned the volume down to talk to somebody, deselected VHF 1 to make an HF call, and forgot to reselect.
121.5 is the one where you might get to hear an ELT first, and help somebody else.
The real point about the training package is that is it is asking pilots to think, and use the frequency that is most appropriate for where they are and what they are doing, rather than a cast iron set of rules that only fit where they touch.
And to be damned sure they are on the local CTAF/MBZ frequency when they are any where near an aerodrome, stay away from approach and departure areas when reasonably possible, use the AIP provisions to fly off track, and so on.
In short, fly smart, stay right out of the way of the RPT aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Why ??
Because that is the frequency that is monitored by all airline aircraft in cruise, most of the time, and the frequency on which you are most likely to get an immediate answer if you are at low level and you have a problem.
I have lost count of the times, from "on high" I have picked up somebody on 121.5, when all other frequencies have failed to get a contact. When they are IFR, and I am calling for ATC, why no answer to ATC on the area centre frequency?? Who knows, black hole. any number of reasons, turned the volume down to talk to somebody, deselected VHF 1 to make an HF call, and forgot to reselect.
121.5 is the one where you might get to hear an ELT first, and help somebody else.
The real point about the training package is that is it is asking pilots to think, and use the frequency that is most appropriate for where they are and what they are doing, rather than a cast iron set of rules that only fit where they touch.
And to be damned sure they are on the local CTAF/MBZ frequency when they are any where near an aerodrome, stay away from approach and departure areas when reasonably possible, use the AIP provisions to fly off track, and so on.
In short, fly smart, stay right out of the way of the RPT aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Leadsled
You've been a little reticent of late - welcome back.
To what safety problem is the removal of the frequency boundaries the solution?
How do frequency boundaries on charts prevent prudent pilots from doing all of things you suggest?
You've been a little reticent of late - welcome back.
To what safety problem is the removal of the frequency boundaries the solution?
How do frequency boundaries on charts prevent prudent pilots from doing all of things you suggest?
We went out NVFR at O'crack sparrow for the C172 search earlier this week, and I (foolishly) grabbed the new VNC for my co pilot. Much angst on the way as he tried to find frequencies, until we realised the mistake and used the current chart.
WTF are we supposed to do to communicate? I'm at a loss to understand the removal of area freqs from VNC & VTC's, although the AF's still "exist" and are promulgated on ERC's
Advance in safety? Improvement in communications? Warm & fuzzy feeling for the Rocket Scientist who has had the location of transmitters added to the frequency box? 
The mind boggles, quite frankly. I'm glad that I have a full IFR chart subscription, it will give me a clue when it all turns to tears.
WTF are we supposed to do to communicate? I'm at a loss to understand the removal of area freqs from VNC & VTC's, although the AF's still "exist" and are promulgated on ERC's
Advance in safety? Improvement in communications? Warm & fuzzy feeling for the Rocket Scientist who has had the location of transmitters added to the frequency box? The mind boggles, quite frankly. I'm glad that I have a full IFR chart subscription, it will give me a clue when it all turns to tears.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: America/Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nas area frequencies and boundaries
I have flown extensively in the U.S. in various capacities and am amazed at the preoccupation Australian pilots have with pilot to pilot talk on ATC freqs. The U.S. sectional charts (U.S. version of VNC's) have no area frequencies or boundaries and pilots do not talk pilot to pilot on ATC freq's. VFR pilots basically fly looking out the window, at the proper VFR cruising altitude, and squawk 1200. If you want to make a controller very unhappy, just try having a pilot to pilot yik yak on his frequency. I fly around the Sydney Basin and hear a large amount of pilot to pilot talk on the ATC freq's....most of which has zero safety value to me and where I am flying. I actually think this not a good safety practice...I just find myself wanting to turn the volume down on the radio.
Perhaps the reason we have so many incidents in CTAF/MBZ's is because by the time pilots arrive at the airport, their ears are numb.
I believe safety will improve after these reforms when pilots are quiet on ATC freq's enroute where the risk is low, and listen up and communicate on the CTAF/MBZ where the risk is higher.
Perhaps the reason we have so many incidents in CTAF/MBZ's is because by the time pilots arrive at the airport, their ears are numb.
I believe safety will improve after these reforms when pilots are quiet on ATC freq's enroute where the risk is low, and listen up and communicate on the CTAF/MBZ where the risk is higher.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to hear that the new airspace is going to reduce the already high workload for VFR pilots and let them now concentrate more on effective scanning techniques, which as we all know is THE most effective way of traffic mangement and seperation.
Radios are a thing of the past. In fact it's amazing that radios and their use in aviation became so wide spread considering that you don't need them at all to sperate yourself from anyone else that might be sharing your airspace.
And as we know, everyone keeps a listening watch on 121.5 so if the need does arise to dust the cobwebs off the ole set and talk to someone who looked like they filled the windscreen a little we can use this frequency and ask them if they were using an effective scan rate. (obviously they wouldn't of been)
As mentioned already, reducing radio induced ear numbing is another great side effect meaning that all of these over stressed, high workload VFR pilots when having to talk on the MBZ or such can do so without ear or voice fatigue, once again improving their ability to scan the horizon.
Good one
Radios are a thing of the past. In fact it's amazing that radios and their use in aviation became so wide spread considering that you don't need them at all to sperate yourself from anyone else that might be sharing your airspace.
And as we know, everyone keeps a listening watch on 121.5 so if the need does arise to dust the cobwebs off the ole set and talk to someone who looked like they filled the windscreen a little we can use this frequency and ask them if they were using an effective scan rate. (obviously they wouldn't of been)
As mentioned already, reducing radio induced ear numbing is another great side effect meaning that all of these over stressed, high workload VFR pilots when having to talk on the MBZ or such can do so without ear or voice fatigue, once again improving their ability to scan the horizon.
Good one
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because that is the frequency that is monitored by all airline aircraft in cruise, most of the time, and the frequency on which you are most likely to get an immediate answer if you are at low level and you have a problem
Perhaps the reason we have so many incidents in CTAF/MBZ's is because by the time pilots arrive at the airport, their ears are numb.
And to be damned sure they are on the local CTAF/MBZ frequency when they are any where near an aerodrome, stay away from approach and departure areas when reasonably possible, use the AIP provisions to fly off track, and so on.
In short, fly smart, stay right out of the way of the RPT aircraft.
An inclusive system is the best system. This proposal is almost the opposite of inclusive. The U.S. system is inclusive. IMHO this system will drive pilots like myself (low time VFR) away. The radio and CTA bogeyman just gets scarier.
Another nail in the GA coffin. Just wait until the first proper airmiss. That'll really fill the flying schools- not.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roll on November 27th. At least we'll be uninterrupted by irrelevant drivel on the area frequency when my co-pilot or passenger calls traffic.
Anybody worried by these changes should promise never to fly in the US.
In what way is the US system inclusive and the NAS not so?
I've flown VFR in gliders and GA private aircraft in the US. In radar coverage in dense traffic airspace you may use the radar service but the rest of the time you look out. No area frequencies and no requirement for enroute communication VFR.
I've flown a glider over the airport LBJ went into in Air Force One when he went home (long runway) at less than 1500 feet because it was being used as a turnpoint in the contest. I did this along with 64 other people in 64 other gliders that hour. Nobody thought it remarkable.
The contest used other places like Laughlin AFB(4000 jet movements a day) as turnpoints too. Mix in biz jets, lots of private GA, Navy jets out of Corpus Christi on medium level cross country navs all with no radio alerting and you very quickly get good at scanning and seeing other traffic. Again this is regarded as unremarkable.
One day flying back into the sunset getting a little low and needing a thermal I spotted two corn husks above the horizon. Saved again I thought for a moment then the "corn husks" turned into two F4's going by.
What would you guys on the area frequency have been doing -looking at the map for the frequency boundary?
I've also seen lots of GA aircraft in 2500 hours of cross country gliding in Oz. The only ones who respond to my wing waggle are crop dusters which says something about the lookout standards. Relying on the radio to alert us are we? Well guess what - there are things out there from gliders down to eagles who never were on the area frequency.
I'm really looking forward to the blessed silence enroute particularly with my new ANR headset.
Anybody worried by these changes should promise never to fly in the US.
In what way is the US system inclusive and the NAS not so?
I've flown VFR in gliders and GA private aircraft in the US. In radar coverage in dense traffic airspace you may use the radar service but the rest of the time you look out. No area frequencies and no requirement for enroute communication VFR.
I've flown a glider over the airport LBJ went into in Air Force One when he went home (long runway) at less than 1500 feet because it was being used as a turnpoint in the contest. I did this along with 64 other people in 64 other gliders that hour. Nobody thought it remarkable.
The contest used other places like Laughlin AFB(4000 jet movements a day) as turnpoints too. Mix in biz jets, lots of private GA, Navy jets out of Corpus Christi on medium level cross country navs all with no radio alerting and you very quickly get good at scanning and seeing other traffic. Again this is regarded as unremarkable.
One day flying back into the sunset getting a little low and needing a thermal I spotted two corn husks above the horizon. Saved again I thought for a moment then the "corn husks" turned into two F4's going by.
What would you guys on the area frequency have been doing -looking at the map for the frequency boundary?
I've also seen lots of GA aircraft in 2500 hours of cross country gliding in Oz. The only ones who respond to my wing waggle are crop dusters which says something about the lookout standards. Relying on the radio to alert us are we? Well guess what - there are things out there from gliders down to eagles who never were on the area frequency.
I'm really looking forward to the blessed silence enroute particularly with my new ANR headset.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold File,
Sure a good scan is handy,but its also good to know where to look!!Soo its safe if 1 a/c is cruising at a VFR level and the other a/c cruising at a IFR level ,Doing the right thing!!but I still have to climb/decend thru the IFR levels to get to my VFR level dont I.
Wheres the saftey when 2 a/c in diffrent catergorys,of the same type ,ie Speed,are going into the same place which isnt a CTAF/MBZ
I fly in areas where IFR(below 10,000)mixes with VFR below 10.And also we have a lot of jet traffic,737s,146s.
and alot of the places we fly to arnt CTAF or MBZs.Soo Its listen out,not just look out.Unless we get radar how can it be safer?
Q,Dont they have total radar coverge in the states?
PS If you nothing constuctive to say,dont bother!!!
Sure a good scan is handy,but its also good to know where to look!!Soo its safe if 1 a/c is cruising at a VFR level and the other a/c cruising at a IFR level ,Doing the right thing!!but I still have to climb/decend thru the IFR levels to get to my VFR level dont I.
Wheres the saftey when 2 a/c in diffrent catergorys,of the same type ,ie Speed,are going into the same place which isnt a CTAF/MBZ
I fly in areas where IFR(below 10,000)mixes with VFR below 10.And also we have a lot of jet traffic,737s,146s.
and alot of the places we fly to arnt CTAF or MBZs.Soo Its listen out,not just look out.Unless we get radar how can it be safer?
Q,Dont they have total radar coverge in the states?
PS If you nothing constuctive to say,dont bother!!!
Lead Sled,
What might these be?
The next obvious observation is that whilst now not looking intently at the frequency boundary (none of which is actually anywhere near an airfield: so much for that red herring), our erstwhile VFR experts, upon all the fare-paying pax rely on for separation, will be intently looking at their new toy, the GPS, diligently flying 1nm off track!
Get a grip you lot: radio use at an airfield with mixed high-speed traffic is the only practical way to keep aircraft apart.
Otherwise, lets mandate the ICAO recommendation, soon to become a requirement, that ALL aircraft, regardless of where they are or their category, have and use a transponder.
use the AIP provisions to fly off track
The next obvious observation is that whilst now not looking intently at the frequency boundary (none of which is actually anywhere near an airfield: so much for that red herring), our erstwhile VFR experts, upon all the fare-paying pax rely on for separation, will be intently looking at their new toy, the GPS, diligently flying 1nm off track!
Get a grip you lot: radio use at an airfield with mixed high-speed traffic is the only practical way to keep aircraft apart.
Otherwise, lets mandate the ICAO recommendation, soon to become a requirement, that ALL aircraft, regardless of where they are or their category, have and use a transponder.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of you who are incredulous at Duke16's post should read it again; it's a fact. 
It's actually the reason Dick S wants the US system here; it's really simple.
I see that elsewhere there's a post saying that somebody goes into an aerodrome which isn't a CTAF/MBZ and intimates that terminal comms are a problem. This is a classic example of lack of education [which will sink this NAS proposal {and me happy to keep the status quo, BTW}] to cross the cultural boundary in introducing a mature system from another place.
Let me explain carefully; if you are flying to an aerodrome that is not in a CTR or MBZ, IT IS A CTAF!! You use 126.7 [if there's no other freq allocated] to communicate at a distance appropriate to your speed to let folks know you're coming. Simple.
If you're operating at an aerodrome which isn't at or in a CTR or MBZ and doesn't have a non-126.7 allocated frequency, you should be listening on 126.7 if you have an operable radio.
Hope that helps a bit.
G'day
It's actually the reason Dick S wants the US system here; it's really simple.
I see that elsewhere there's a post saying that somebody goes into an aerodrome which isn't a CTAF/MBZ and intimates that terminal comms are a problem. This is a classic example of lack of education [which will sink this NAS proposal {and me happy to keep the status quo, BTW}] to cross the cultural boundary in introducing a mature system from another place.
Let me explain carefully; if you are flying to an aerodrome that is not in a CTR or MBZ, IT IS A CTAF!! You use 126.7 [if there's no other freq allocated] to communicate at a distance appropriate to your speed to let folks know you're coming. Simple.
If you're operating at an aerodrome which isn't at or in a CTR or MBZ and doesn't have a non-126.7 allocated frequency, you should be listening on 126.7 if you have an operable radio.
Hope that helps a bit.
G'day
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally must admit to not being completely comfortable with the new charts.
I am also not personally happy with the way NASIG have been going about their business.
But we do need some change, and we are now stuck with these charts.
So I suggest we fly em for the next 3 - 6 months and whinge on here when something stuffs up. Then we (AOPA, CivilAir or whoever) can go back to NASIG and tell em to fixit.
AK
I am also not personally happy with the way NASIG have been going about their business.
But we do need some change, and we are now stuck with these charts.
So I suggest we fly em for the next 3 - 6 months and whinge on here when something stuffs up. Then we (AOPA, CivilAir or whoever) can go back to NASIG and tell em to fixit.
AK
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: yssy
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about - -
1730 LMT, inbound to a CTAF, from the West, at 230kts, and at 30 nm commence descent, the CTAF elev is say 1000 ft. A VFR has, following all the good advice, been tracking North towards the CTAF, and decides to pass abeam the CTAF to the West.
Suddenly, from out of the sun, the VFR has the windscreen filled with a 230 kt inbound.
The VFR didn't hear the CTAF inbound call from the 230 knotter, and there was no area freq for the two of them to have been advised on.
Do I misinterpret what is going to happen, or have I missed something?
1730 LMT, inbound to a CTAF, from the West, at 230kts, and at 30 nm commence descent, the CTAF elev is say 1000 ft. A VFR has, following all the good advice, been tracking North towards the CTAF, and decides to pass abeam the CTAF to the West.
Suddenly, from out of the sun, the VFR has the windscreen filled with a 230 kt inbound.
The VFR didn't hear the CTAF inbound call from the 230 knotter, and there was no area freq for the two of them to have been advised on.
Do I misinterpret what is going to happen, or have I missed something?
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A message from the UK...
Hi there,
I am in favour of NAS changes in Australia, but I should disclose my interest: as a UK resident holding a UK/Euro JAR-PPL, I welcome the changes which make Australia less different to ICAO norms. I fly (VFR only) in a number of territories besides the UK including several European States, the US and last Christmas back in Australia. All of these territories have their own regional peculiarities that the VFR pilot needs to be aware of (e.g. LARS services and MATZ in the UK), but generally speaking are pretty close to ICAO norms. I found Australian airspace and charts etc. to be the most peculiar compared to the norm.
Of course, Australia is an island state and I understand that many of us think that the rest of the world is so far away as to not matter, and I have declared my interests as an ex-pat occasional visitor up-front, so I understand that these considerations might not seem important to all of you guys back at home. Bear in mind though that there are benefits to having a less peculiar approach. These include a more internationally standard environment for flight schools who earn foreign exchange by training foreign nationals, an easier transition to foreign airspace when you blokes rent an aircraft in the US, UK or eslewhere when on holidays, and (lastly!) an easier time of it for blokes like me visiting home (OK I accept the last one won't convinve you guys that its worth the effort!!)
If you accept that safety is not diminished by the changes (I appreciate that this is being debated, but experience elsewhere indicates the more standard approaches are not realtively unsafe) then I think the main problem is just the need for education and for everyone to get used to the new arrangements: change can often be difficult to accept at first, so its not surprising this is hacking people off...
So, I agree with what Duke16, eta23 and others have said.
Likewise, here in the UK we rarely get to speak to each other air-to-air on ATC frequencies, except when making blind calls say at an airfield which is unmanned and some other rare circumstances. We also don't have blanket radar services here - yet we have MUCH greater traffic density, especially in the class G under and around the class A London extended TMA/CTR areas (these cover half of southern England) where we are restricted vertically and horizontally and we have a mix fo IFR and VFR traffic. Someone asked if they have blanket radar coverage in the US: they do not (although it is extensive, but only in areas with high traffic density which I don't see as comparable to most of Australia).
I agree with Capn Bloggs: the sooner everyone gets a transponder the better (although we rue the fact that we are having to shell out for mode-S over here and envy that you are maybe getting ADS/B surveillance over there!)... flying last weekend in a friends new Cirrus SR-22 which has a large multi-function display with an overlay of traffic information on the map was a real eye opener as to how valuable transponders can be: must be even more important for our ATPL colleagues flying IFR to be able to see us. Ultimately I think this is the best and most efficient way to keep IFR/VFR alert to each other's presence in shared airspace such as class E. Of course you still have to have your head up and your eyes looking out of the window mostly!
In summary, I think you guys will get used to it and eventually appreciate some of the benefits. I wish you a safe transition!
Best to all,
Andy
p.s. kimwest: a) does the RPT have TCAS? b) does the VFR a/c have Mode C? Problem solved...
I am in favour of NAS changes in Australia, but I should disclose my interest: as a UK resident holding a UK/Euro JAR-PPL, I welcome the changes which make Australia less different to ICAO norms. I fly (VFR only) in a number of territories besides the UK including several European States, the US and last Christmas back in Australia. All of these territories have their own regional peculiarities that the VFR pilot needs to be aware of (e.g. LARS services and MATZ in the UK), but generally speaking are pretty close to ICAO norms. I found Australian airspace and charts etc. to be the most peculiar compared to the norm.
Of course, Australia is an island state and I understand that many of us think that the rest of the world is so far away as to not matter, and I have declared my interests as an ex-pat occasional visitor up-front, so I understand that these considerations might not seem important to all of you guys back at home. Bear in mind though that there are benefits to having a less peculiar approach. These include a more internationally standard environment for flight schools who earn foreign exchange by training foreign nationals, an easier transition to foreign airspace when you blokes rent an aircraft in the US, UK or eslewhere when on holidays, and (lastly!
) an easier time of it for blokes like me visiting home (OK I accept the last one won't convinve you guys that its worth the effort!!)If you accept that safety is not diminished by the changes (I appreciate that this is being debated, but experience elsewhere indicates the more standard approaches are not realtively unsafe) then I think the main problem is just the need for education and for everyone to get used to the new arrangements: change can often be difficult to accept at first, so its not surprising this is hacking people off...
So, I agree with what Duke16, eta23 and others have said.
I have flown extensively in the U.S. in various capacities and am amazed at the preoccupation Australian pilots have with pilot to pilot talk on ATC freqs.
I agree with Capn Bloggs: the sooner everyone gets a transponder the better (although we rue the fact that we are having to shell out for mode-S over here and envy that you are maybe getting ADS/B surveillance over there!)... flying last weekend in a friends new Cirrus SR-22 which has a large multi-function display with an overlay of traffic information on the map was a real eye opener as to how valuable transponders can be: must be even more important for our ATPL colleagues flying IFR to be able to see us. Ultimately I think this is the best and most efficient way to keep IFR/VFR alert to each other's presence in shared airspace such as class E. Of course you still have to have your head up and your eyes looking out of the window mostly!
In summary, I think you guys will get used to it and eventually appreciate some of the benefits. I wish you a safe transition!
Best to all,
Andy
p.s. kimwest: a) does the RPT have TCAS? b) does the VFR a/c have Mode C? Problem solved...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Caloundra Queensland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed that it's much easier flying in the US (and UK) than in the cocktail flying environment of Australian airspace.
I've done several trips with US pilots and the main difference I see is that "they" they offer to assist you, and they do. Want radar? You've got it, no problem - glad to help, have a nice day.
Here, "they" obviously want to relegate all VFR pllots to the status of bike riders on a freeway.
It is no burden to have area frequencies on a map or chart; it takes 3 seconds to verify that the correct frequency is being monitored, hardly a distraction; and it is nice to know what's going on around you.
Educate pilots: no need to remove the facility.
I've done several trips with US pilots and the main difference I see is that "they" they offer to assist you, and they do. Want radar? You've got it, no problem - glad to help, have a nice day.
Here, "they" obviously want to relegate all VFR pllots to the status of bike riders on a freeway.
It is no burden to have area frequencies on a map or chart; it takes 3 seconds to verify that the correct frequency is being monitored, hardly a distraction; and it is nice to know what's going on around you.
Educate pilots: no need to remove the facility.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Andy
You raise a good point.....should all aircraft have a transponder?
What about gliders and ultralights?
This would certainly solve the problem RPT and large charter faces when operating around the smaller aircraft.
You raise a good point.....should all aircraft have a transponder?
What about gliders and ultralights?
This would certainly solve the problem RPT and large charter faces when operating around the smaller aircraft.